Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

wellboytoo

Hijpo wrote: »

And VAT and motor tax was increased.... gave it back with the left then took it with the right and there was more to follow giving water services as one of the reasons for the increases.
Rates are gone and property tax is in, so rates are pretty much back again just under a different name.

You are missing my point, rates were collected and spent locally all the other tax's mentioned are central government and went to Dublin.

Hijpo

wellboytoo wrote: »

You are missing my point, rates were collected and spent locally all the other tax's mentioned are central government and went to Dublin.

How does it matter where they were collected? Thats a governmental decision to pool the money. Rates were collected and a portion used for water services, rates were abolished and VAT and motor tax increases were implemented instead, if the government didnt want to spend it on water services thats out of our hands but they did not say "water will be free now" we still paid through our taxes.

robtri

wellboytoo wrote: »

You are missing my point, rates were collected and spent locally all the other tax's mentioned are central government and went to Dublin.

Thats not true, taxes where increased on specifically motor tax and excise duties in 1997 and ring fenced for the provision of water services.
this is a legal statue under the 1997 local government financing act.

They where not for a central fund.

see page three.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/1997/en.act.1997.0029.pdf

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

Thats not true, taxes where increased on specifically motor tax and excise duties in 1997 and ring fenced for the provision of water services.
this is a legal statue under the 1997 local government financing act.

They where not for a central fund.

see page three.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/1997/en.act.1997.0029.pdf

Good find! So we were paying for Water after all! And there we were being told that we were the only people in the world not paying for water and that we should truly be ashamed of ourselves.

Max Powers

Psychedelic wrote: »

You don't mind that he ran on an independent ticket knowing full well he would jump ship to Fianna Fail shortly after he was elected? Considering he only barely managed to get elected (last candidate elected on the 8th count or something) there's no way he would've got in if he was a FF candidate. That is very sneaky. He knew full well what he was at.

On the "I can achieve more for Waterford as part of FF" spin, firstly FF may not get into Government and if they do, he will be a backbencher with little influence. If in opposition with FF he will have even less influence. He was elected to be a local independent councillor, not to use it as a platform to run in the General Election for the party who ruined the country.

Short answer is no i dont really care. We will need a decent FF candidate when the time comes that FF will be back in power. He seems to be to be more competent and clued in than all the rest of them. If your worried about him being in opposition in next govt, does that mean you have made up your mind you are voting FG/Lab

Hijpo

Max Powers wrote: »

Short answer is no i dont really care. We will need a decent FF candidate when the time comes that FF will be back in power. He seems to be to be more competent and clued in than all the rest of them. If your worried about him being in opposition in next govt, does that mean you have made up your mind you are voting FG/Lab

A good candidate always falls into line with the party whip, thats pretty much the harsh reality of it.

Psychedelic

Max Powers wrote: »

Short answer is no i dont really care. We will need a decent FF candidate when the time comes that FF will be back in power. He seems to be to be more competent and clued in than all the rest of them. If your worried about him being in opposition in next govt, does that mean you have made up your mind you are voting FG/Lab

I will vote for Independents, maybe SF, definitely not anyone from FF/FG/Lab. I suppose that if FF have a good candidate like Eddie and if that results in FG & Lab losing a seat to him then that's good. And if FF are to have a seat in Waterford, it may as well be someone like Eddie.

7upfree

Hijpo wrote: »

A good candidate sell-out always falls into line with the party whip, thats pretty much the harsh reality of it.

There ya go.

Max Powers

i think that graffiti that has been put on the scaffold hoarding on the quay (beside tourist office) is horrible. I saw it there last week and somebody (presumably council) covered it by painting all the hoarding. It now says stuff like 'bully tactics council,no water tax' etc. Not only does this serve absolutely zero function, its ugly and there is a window business trying to operate in there, of course, these idiots dont think about that and have a misguided opinion that this does anything constructive.

PS calling the council bullies is a bit odd, on what terms are the council bullies i wonder?

Max Powers

Pamela Uddin off apprentice rumour for FF candidate. I dont know if they meant Waterford or Dublin since she works up there.

wellboytoo

We are going to have a general election in the next 18 months, and I have been thinking who could I vote for, SF is a no no for me ever, FG and Labour will not get it because of the so called amalgamation and the WIT debacle, FF have no obvious candidate that would pass an IQ test, and independents are a waste of a vote IMO.
Maybe I should start a party?

hardybuck

wellboytoo wrote: »

We are going to have a general election in the next 18 months, and I have been thinking who could I vote for, SF is a no no for me ever, FG and Labour will not get it because of the so called amalgamation and the WIT debacle, FF have no obvious candidate that would pass an IQ test, and independents are a waste of a vote IMO.
Maybe I should start a party?

I think there is still a gap caused by the break up of the likes of the PDs and even the Green Party to a lesser extent. I think that you'll see some of the independents come under the Reform Alliance banner over the next 18 months.

Hijpo

hardybuck wrote: »

I think there is still a gap caused by the break up of the likes of the PDs and even the Green Party to a lesser extent. I think that you'll see some of the independents come under the Reform Alliance banner over the next 18 months.

Reform alliance is out for me after what happened to the technical group. It came across as very under handed and premeditated to shield FG by two former FG members.

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

Reform alliance is out for me after what happened to the technical group. It came across as very under handed and premeditated to shield FG by two former FG members.

I'd say any party would be very slow to shield former members who rebelled and walked away from them?

This is where independents get messy. A brief summary:

1. We have a group of independents who form a Technical Group in order to gain access to speaking rights in the Dail.

2. Then a number of other new independents seek to join the Technical Group. The existing members don't like this and won't let them join.

3. The Ceann Comhairle says that the Technical Alliance should accept the new members to ensure more independents are treated fairly and have access to speaking rights.

4. The Technical Group members kick up such a fuss that they end up forcing the Dail debates to be suspended for the day, three of them being given suspensions for poor behaviour.

5. The following day the Technical Alliance decide to technically allow the new independents to join their group. They also state that they would oppose them becoming members if they could, but cannot.

You can see that the Technical Alliance aren't too far off a policital party as things stand. They seemed to only want members who shared their general principles, and weren't prepared to allow in new members who don't. They have funding and administrative staff. Sounds like a party, maybe just without a whip system.

Hijpo

hardybuck wrote: »

I'd say any party would be very slow to shield former members who rebelled and walked away from them?

This is where independents get messy. A brief summary:

1. We have a group of independents who form a Technical Group in order to gain access to speaking rights in the Dail.

2. Then a number of other new independents seek to join the Technical Group. The existing members don't like this and won't let them join.

3. The Ceann Comhairle says that the Technical Alliance should accept the new members to ensure more independents are treated fairly and have access to speaking rights.

4. The Technical Group members kick up such a fuss that they end up forcing the Dail debates to be suspended for the day, three of them being given suspensions for poor behaviour.

5. The following day the Technical Alliance decide to technically allow the new independents to join their group. They also state that they would oppose them becoming members if they could, but cannot.

You can see that the Technical Alliance aren't too far off a policital party as things stand. They seemed to only want members who shared their general principles, and weren't prepared to allow in new members who don't. They have funding and administrative staff. Sounds like a party, maybe just without a whip system.

You see the way i read it is that the Ceann Comhairle can (and would) exercise his right to allow the two former FG members speaking time even though they are not assigned it by the technical group. This could lead to other members of the technical group loosing there speaking time (on an issue that casts FG is a bad light) because a FG Ceann Comhairle gives two former FG members priority (on a silly issue) over them.

I dont like the fact that two former FG members can mosey into a group and be used by a FG Ceann Comhairle to restrict them. Maybe im getting it wrong.

Technical group does have a whip in the form of Catherine Murphy, or are you saying a merger of technical group and reform alliance wont have a whip?

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

You see the way i read it is that the Ceann Comhairle can (and would) exercise his right to allow the two former FG members speaking time even though they are not assigned it by the technical group. This could lead to other members of the technical group loosing there speaking time (on an issue that casts FG is a bad light) because a FG Ceann Comhairle gives two former FG members priority (on a silly issue) over them.

I dont like the fact that two former FG members can mosey into a group and be used by a FG Ceann Comhairle to restrict them. Maybe im getting it wrong.

Technical group does have a whip in the form of Catherine Murphy, or are you saying a merger of technical group and reform alliance wont have a whip?

My real question is what is the difference between a Technical Group and a policital party, especially if there is a whip system in place?

Other Technical Group members include Shane Ross who is ex Fine Gael. Catherine Murphy and Clare Daly ex Labour. Tom Fleming is ex Fianna Fail. Thomas Pringle is ex Sinn Fein. Two or three others are other Socialist party members.

If you are looking at the Reform Alliance members' past allegiances you should also be looking at the Technical Group members pasts as well.

Hijpo

hardybuck wrote: »

My real question is what is the difference between a Technical Group and a policital party, especially if there is a whip system in place?

Other Technical Group members include Shane Ross who is ex Fine Gael. Catherine Murphy and Clare Daly ex Labour. Tom Fleming is ex Fianna Fail. Thomas Pringle is ex Sinn Fein. Two or three others are other Socialist party members.

If you are looking at the Reform Alliance members' past allegiances you should also be looking at the Technical Group members pasts as well.

I can see your point but with FG pulling all the strings in the coalition and the rest in opposition the two stand out bogeys would be the former FG members. What did they have to gain by joining the technical group if they could be granted speaking rights regardless?
Given the amount of back scratching and friendly favours being bandied about up there I cant see past the fact that FG could use those two as a vehicle with Sean Barret as the driver to restrict the technical group.
The correspondence and information being acquired just has collusion niggling at me and it puts me off the reform alliance.

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

I can see your point but with FG pulling all the strings in the coalition and the rest in opposition the two stand out bogeys would be the former FG members. What did they have to gain by joining the technical group if they could be granted speaking rights regardless?
Given the amount of back scratching and friendly favours being bandied about up there I cant see past the fact that FG could use those two as a vehicle with Sean Barret as the driver to restrict the technical group.
The correspondence and information being acquired just has collusion niggling at me and it puts me off the reform alliance.

They would not get equal speaking rights until they became members of the Technical Group - that was the whole point.

I would view this in a totally opposite way. Creighton is the leading light in that Reform Alliance and one of the two ex FG you refer to.

Creighton was long at odds with FG party leadership. She was a leading member in the unsuccessful leadership push against Kenny in 2010. She was openly critical of Kenny in the media during her time in a FG government. She was openly critical of FG policy on several issues. She was eventually expelled from the party for voting against the party whip.

I really don't buy a conspiracy or collusion involving Sean Barrett or the FG party doing favours for someone like Creighton. If anything the Technical Group has been bolstered by new members.

I do wonder how independent the 'independents' in the Technical Party now are though, as they seem to be political party in everything but name.

Hijpo

hardybuck wrote: »

They would not get equal speaking rights until they became members of the Technical Group - that was the whole point.

I would view this in a totally opposite way. Creighton is the leading light in that Reform Alliance and one of the two ex FG you refer to.

Creighton was long at odds with FG party leadership. She was a leading member in the unsuccessful leadership push against Kenny in 2010. She was openly critical of Kenny in the media during her time in a FG government. She was openly critical of FG policy on several issues. She was eventually expelled from the party for voting against the party whip.

I really don't buy a conspiracy or collusion involving Sean Barrett or the FG party doing favours for someone like Creighton. If anything the Technical Group has been bolstered by new members.

I do wonder how independent the 'independents' in the Technical Party now are though, as they seem to be political party in everything but name.

Politicians and their parties can thank themselves for anyone who tends to see politics with paranoid eyes.

Is their anything forcing parties to implement the whip system?

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

Politicians and their parties can thank themselves for anyone who tends to see politics with paranoid eyes.

Is their anything forcing parties to implement the whip system?

No, but without the whip it would be difficult for any kind of consistency of approach or strategic direction. All the different TDs would have competing interests and nothing would get done. Creighton broke the party whip and was kicked out.

Even the Technical Group operate in this way as you've mentioned.

Hijpo

hardybuck wrote: »

No, but without the whip it would be difficult for any kind of consistency of approach or strategic direction. All the different TDs would have competing interests and nothing would get done. Creighton broke the party whip and was kicked out.

Even the Technical Group operate in this way as you've mentioned.

If you have common goals would you not tend to vote in unison anyway?

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

If you have common goals would you not tend to vote in unison anyway?

Generally, but you'll always have emotive issues.

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

If you have common goals would you not tend to vote in unison anyway?

Generally, but you'll always have emotive issues.

Fate Amenable To Change

I have to say its great that Fine Gael and Labour are concerned with rapes etc. they might decide to actually reopen some of the centres they shut and set up some new ones and better legislation and put more money in to prevention and education.

Of course cynicaly speaking theyll do none of this and are using a rape for their own political ends.

Fate Amenable To Change

I have to say its great that Fine Gael and Labour are concerned with rapes etc. they might decide to actually reopen some of the centres they shut and set up some new ones and better legislation and put more money in to prevention and education.

Of course cynicaly speaking theyll do none of this and are using a rape for their own political ends.

hardybuck

Fate Amenable To Change wrote: »

I have to say its great that Fine Gael and Labour are concerned with rapes etc. they might decide to actually reopen some of the centres they shut and set up some new ones and better legislation and put more money in to prevention and education.

Of course cynicaly speaking theyll do none of this and are using a rape for their own political ends.

Just FG and Labour?

Fate Amenable To Change

hardybuck wrote: »

Just FG and Labour?

Ad far as the ones setting the agaenda and deciding where the money goes, yeah??? Fiana Fail can make a fuss and look like idiots/hypocrites but they're not hugging a victim in front of cameras while cutting funding for centres at the moment.

Hijpo

Can you give an example of an emotive issue?
Baring in mind they are elected as representatives of the people, that they should be voting in accordance with the way they think the people want them to vote not the way there boss tells/wants them to or face the consequence.

hardybuck

Hijpo wrote: »

Can you give an example of an emotive issue?
Baring in mind they are elected as representatives of the people, that they should be voting in accordance with the way they think the people want them to vote not the way there boss tells/wants them to or face the consequence.

Yes. Creighton voted against the abortion legislation when it was being passed in the Dail. She broke the party whip, as she saw this as core to her personal beliefs and lost her job over it.

A less emotive issue - every minister will want more funds for their Department in the budget. While they won't all be 100% happy with their allocation, they'll get on with it, as sometimes you've got to make compromises and/or be a team player.

hardybuck

Fate Amenable To Change wrote: »

Ad far as the ones setting the agaenda and deciding where the money goes, yeah??? Fiana Fail can make a fuss and look like idiots/hypocrites but they're not hugging a victim in front of cameras while cutting funding for centres at the moment.

Like which ones?